Other than the narrow range, the other distinctive feature of Table 9 is the slight evidence, if any, of a linear relationship between exposure to the Monterrey environment and the various value or behavioral items. Indeed, for religious belief and practice, Short Exposure Migrants and Second Generation Natives are closer to each other than to any of the other groups.
How are we to interpret this table? There are two possibilities. One is to assume that the Monterrey environment imposes the same standards on everyone, migrant and native alike, so that the migrant must take up new Monterrey values. However, this presumes an extremely effective mode of socialization of incoming migrants, and there is no evidence that this is so. The other alternative, and the more likely one, is simply that there are no great value differences in northern Mexico, rural or metropolitan, at least with respect to such basic institutions as family and religion. Since well over half the Monterrey men have rural origins going back no more than two generations, it can be argued that, if anything, the rural influence is dominant in Monterrey. Among the adult population, natives are definitely in the minority, and the question "Who socializes whom?" must be raised.
In any event, whatever the origins of family and religious values: Excepting for special groups, such as Indians, migrants to large cities do not differ radically from the natives with respect to their fundamental values. If this can be confirmed, it suggests that there are not two distinct cultural and normative systems—the rural and the urban—in developing societies that demand unswerving allegiance from their members. All statements suggesting chasm-like differences will be far from the mark. The proposition advanced therefore requires neither that peasants be converted into instant urbanites nor the equally dubious possibility that they become "urban peasants." Life in large cities does require of in-migrants from rural areas many changes in style and tempo of life. But these changes need not destroy or greatly affect basic values.
The Ghana study is especially valuable in showing how rural and urban may be amalgamated. The country is in its most intense period of urbanization, but far from there being a violent conflict between tribal life on the one hand and metropolitan existence on the other, these worlds are so closely connected that it is difficult to speak of the one without reference to the other. As Caldwell puts it,
In the sense that most rural-urban migrants who work their active years out in the town are satisfied about what they have done, there can be no real question about their failure to adjust to the town. It could be said that they failed to embrace town life so exclusively as to be adjusted to the town only; rather is their adjustment one to both town and village. They have a cyclical view of their lives which demands a beginning and an end in the village but which is satisfied and even happy to enjoy an extensive urban experience in the interim. . . .backgrounds. They are the group who must make the (rreatest adjustment in stvlp. of livino nnH tVip.rpfnrp nrp nrp«nmali1\/ m^et inhe predominantly male rural-urban migration, in the multilingual character of the society, in the existence of polygamy, and